Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071220/...harper_mulroney

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says it's up to his appointed adviser to determine if a public inquiry is needed to resolve the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

Harper promised an inquiry last month into the decade-old business relationship between former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney and international arms lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.

But in a series of year-end interviews, Harper left the door open for his adviser, David Johnston, to reject the inquiry route.

Johnston's written mandate states that he is to set terms of reference for a public inquiry and its timing, and report back by Jan. 11 - not to determine whether an inquiry is needed.

Asked directly by a radio station this week whether Johnston's mandate includes the no-inquiry option, Harper replied in the affirmative.

As suspected, Harper is trying to back out of an inquiry even though Johnston's mandate as written is to determine the parameters of a inquiry, not to decide if there should not be one at all.

[Oleg Bach]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071220/...harper_mulroney

As suspected, Harper is trying to back out of an inquiry even though Johnston's mandate as written is to determine the parameters of a inquiry, not to decide if there should not be one at all.

Yea money makes crimminals. People are fatigued of crimminals- so they just let it go. smart - WHAT ARE WE TO DO ? TRY ALL THE CROOKS? THERE ARE TO MANY AND THE PUBIC ARE NOT ABOUT TO HAND MORE CASH TO LAWYERS.

[madmax]

How many people who voted that Mulroney did nothing wrong, still hold that opinion today?

Anyone have 2nd thoughts?

[Michael Bluth]

How many people who voted that Mulroney did nothing wrong, still hold that opinion today?

Anyone have 2nd thoughts?

I think the poll was a little wonky.

If there was a category "No, because he did nothing illegal." That would have been my choice.

His dealings with Schreiber were improper but not illegal.

As suspected, Harper is trying to back out of an inquiry even though Johnston's mandate as written is to determine the parameters of a inquiry, not to decide if there should not be one at all.

Has it ever been publicly stated what Johnston should not do?

The majority of Canadians don't want this inquiry. Harper jumped the gun in promising one. Perhaps it is best to change course now, if that is what Johnston decides...

Edited December 21, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[capricorn]

The majority of Canadians don't want this inquiry. Harper jumped the gun in promising one. Perhaps it is best to change course now, if that is what Johnston decides...

Harper will be attacked by the opposition no matter whether or not there is an inquiry. If he listens to the majority of Canadians and nixes an inquiry he will be accused of a cover-up. He would also be accused of "governing by polls" a favourite accusation these days. If he goes ahead with the inquiry the opposition will accuse him of thwarting the will of the majority of Canadians. If I was Harper I would opt to side with those Canadians who don't want their tax money spent on an inquiry that will probably lead nowhere.

Of course this is all dependent on Johnston's recommendation. The best scenario possible for Harper is if Johnston recommends no inquiry and the worse case is if an inquiry is recommended. A "no inquiry" recommendation matched with the wishes of Canadians is the winnable combination. A recommendation for an inquiry would be problematic for Harper since he would have little choice but to agree. He went to great pains to present Johnston as the key to addressing this entire inquiry question. If he ends up reversing Johnston he would lose credibility with many Canadians and the opposition would tear him to shreds over it.

[Michael Bluth]

Harper will be attacked by the opposition no matter whether or not there is an inquiry. If he listens to the majority of Canadians and nixes an inquiry he will be accused of a cover-up. He would also be accused of "governing by polls" a favourite accusation these days. If he goes ahead with the inquiry the opposition will accuse him of thwarting the will of the majority of Canadians. If I was Harper I would opt to side with those Canadians who don't want their tax money spent on an inquiry that will probably lead nowhere.

Of course this is all dependent on Johnston's recommendation. The best scenario possible for Harper is if Johnston recommends no inquiry and the worse case is if an inquiry is recommended. A "no inquiry" recommendation matched with the wishes of Canadians is the winnable combination. A recommendation for an inquiry would be problematic for Harper since he would have little choice but to agree. He went to great pains to present Johnston as the key to addressing this entire inquiry question. If he ends up reversing Johnston he would lose credibility with many Canadians and the opposition would tear him to shreds over it.

Well said.

I don't think Johnston will recommend for an inquiry.

Regardless, we won't see an inquiry. The people don't want it and that's the bottom line.

[Keepitsimple]

I just can't see how anyone could recommend a Public Inquiry when the issue as put forward by the Parliamentary committee was about the $2.1 million Airbus settlement - and that's what they named the hearings. All we know is that:

1) The RCMP couldn't find anything illegal

2) Schreiber, under oath says that Mulroney did not take any bribes

3) Schreiber, under oath, says that the money Mulroney took was not related in any way to Airbus

The only slightly contentious issue that relates to Mulroney's time as PM was whether a verbal business deal was consummated 2 (two) days before he stepped down. If in fact "future services" can be held against Mulroney, it's still a matter of a private conversation, no witnesses and a case of "he said, she said".

This has already been beaten to death and it's time to move on.

[Michael Bluth]

This has already been beaten to death and it's time to move on.

We have already seen at least one of the most prominent Liberal boosters here jump in on the bandwagon. Seven posts ago we saw this

Harper is trying to back out of an inquiry.

Those cries are as lame as *scary* *scary* *scary*.

In many ways this Airbus thing is analgous to Whitewater/Clinton Impeachment was in the US.

The Liberals see themselves as endowed with a God-given right to govern Canada.

The Republicans see themselves as endowed with a God-given right to the Whitehouse.

The Liberals got caught big time with Adscam and lost the following election.

The Republicans got caught big time with Watergate and lost the following Presidential election.

The Liberals want revenge and are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with Airbus.

The Republicans wanted revenge and made a mountain out of a molehill with Lewinsky.

The Republicans wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars with the Clinton Impeachment.

The Liberals want to waste potentially tens of millions of dollars with an unnecessary and unwanted inquiry.

Stand up for Canada. Don't waste the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars.

[jdobbin]

Harper will be attacked by the opposition no matter whether or not there is an inquiry. If he listens to the majority of Canadians and nixes an inquiry he will be accused of a cover-up. He would also be accused of "governing by polls" a favourite accusation these days. If he goes ahead with the inquiry the opposition will accuse him of thwarting the will of the majority of Canadians. If I was Harper I would opt to side with those Canadians who don't want their tax money spent on an inquiry that will probably lead nowhere.

Of course this is all dependent on Johnston's recommendation. The best scenario possible for Harper is if Johnston recommends no inquiry and the worse case is if an inquiry is recommended. A "no inquiry" recommendation matched with the wishes of Canadians is the winnable combination. A recommendation for an inquiry would be problematic for Harper since he would have little choice but to agree. He went to great pains to present Johnston as the key to addressing this entire inquiry question. If he ends up reversing Johnston he would lose credibility with many Canadians and the opposition would tear him to shreds over it.

Harper is governed by polls. Two a day at last count. He tried to embarrass the Liberals on that and they were cleared and it came back to explode in his face when it was revealed that his government easily surpasses the Liberals at their worst in polling. That was followed by Fortier's flip flop where he said there would be a moratorium and then a day later said there wouldn't be.

Harper's written instructions to Johnston was to set the parameters of an inquiry, not to decide not to have one. That is Harper's spin on that.

It is possible that Johnston might say no inquiry is needed but he will have to say why he is going against his written instructions on the matter.

Edited December 21, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I just can't see how anyone could recommend a Public Inquiry when the issue as put forward by the Parliamentary committee was about the $2.1 million Airbus settlement - and that's what they named the hearings. All we know is that:

1) The RCMP couldn't find anything illegal

2) Schreiber, under oath says that Mulroney did not take any bribes

3) Schreiber, under oath, says that the money Mulroney took was not related in any way to Airbus

The only slightly contentious issue that relates to Mulroney's time as PM was whether a verbal business deal was consummated 2 (two) days before he stepped down. If in fact "future services" can be held against Mulroney, it's still a matter of a private conversation, no witnesses and a case of "he said, she said".

This has already been beaten to death and it's time to move on.

The oath of Shreiber and Mulroney is not worth a hill of beans. The committee was ill equipped to get to ask the tough questions.

The eagerness of the Tories to say that nothing untowards happened is just not believed.

Johnston was told to set the parameters of the inquiry. He wasn't told to cancel it just because Harper and Mulroney have changed their minds. In order to cancel an inquiry, Johnston would have to be drawing conclusions about both Mulroney and Shreiber's testimony based solely on sworn testimony that has already been shown to be full of holes.

[capricorn]

Harper is governed by polls.

The vast majority of polls are commissioned by departments and agencies, not by Harper. The polling policy as it stands today existed under the Liberal government. It would therefore be incorrect to conclude that the Conservatives increased polling since their election since the policy was long standing.

"This figure is quite astounding -- in fact, it amounts to over two polls per business day," Paille wrote.

He blames a government policy, renewed by the Tories in 2006, that he says requires departments to poll the public on possible policy or program changes and measure the effectiveness of advertising and marketing projects. (underline mine)

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...fd-58e2cd47e7ac

He tried to embarrass the Liberals on that and they were cleared and it came back to explode in his face when it was revealed that his government easily surpasses the Liberals at their worst in polling.

You're parroting Mark Holland who said this from the same article.

Liberal MP Mark Holland said the Paille report shows the Conservative government is run on polls. "The number of polls they are doing is staggering," he said. "Clearly, this government doesn't blink without doing a poll."

He said the Paille report was originally designed to embarrass the Liberals, as indicated by the choice of a former separatist politician to conduct it.

Harper called for the review as a result of the criticism that polling expenses were excessive. That decision shows he too was concerned when faced with the numbers and he responded responsibly.

Harper's written instructions to Johnston was to set the parameters of an inquiry, not to decide not to have one. That is Harper's spin on that.

A spin that I and other Canadians will endorse.

It is possible that Johnston might say no inquiry is needed but he will have to say why he is going against his written instructions on the matter.

Whatever reasons he gives, he will be quickly forgiven by just about everyone.

In response to Paille's report regarding polls:

Mr. Harper also responded for the first time to a report that his government commissioned an examination of the polling practices of the previous Liberal regime. Although the Liberals originally decried the appointment of former Parti Québécois cabinet minister Daniel Paille to lead the probe as a "witch hunt," Mr. Paille's report concluded the Tories are actually spending more on polls — averaging two per working day.

"It shows we're doing a massive amount of polling, far more than we should be doing," Mr. Harper told the CBC. "We're going to take some steps to reduce that."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

One general comment on these polls. Harper won a minority with 36% of the popular vote. This would indicate that Canadians are divided on major policy matters. In order for the bureaucracy to properly advise the government on proposed policy development and amendment, it is important that it measure the reaction of Canadians beforehand. Otherwise the bureaucracy would be operating in a vacuum.

[Michael Bluth]

The oath of Shreiber and Mulroney is not worth a hill of beans. The committee was ill equipped to get to ask the tough questions.

Why? The CBC didn't provide them with the tough questions to ask?

You're parroting Mark Holland who said this from the same article.

Liberal MP Mark Holland said the Paille report shows the Conservative government is run on polls. "The number of polls they are doing is staggering," he said. "Clearly, this government doesn't blink without doing a poll."

Of course he is parroting what a representative of the Liberal Party of Canada says. There is not thought or originality to the posts at all.

Interesting, sort of like there is no thought or originality to the drivel Mark Holland spews.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

The vast majority of polls are commissioned by departments and agencies, not by Harper. The polling policy as it stands today existed under the Liberal government. It would therefore be incorrect to conclude that the Conservatives increased polling since their election since the policy was long standing.

He said the Paille report was originally designed to embarrass the Liberals, as indicated by the choice of a former separatist politician to conduct it.[/b][/i]

Harper called for the review as a result of the criticism that polling expenses were excessive. That decision shows he too was concerned when faced with the numbers and he responded responsibly.

A spin that I and other Canadians will endorse.

Whatever reasons he gives, he will be quickly forgiven by just about everyone.

In response to Paille's report regarding polls:

Mr. Harper also responded for the first time to a report that his government commissioned an examination of the polling practices of the previous Liberal regime. Although the Liberals originally decried the appointment of former Parti Québécois cabinet minister Daniel Paille to lead the probe as a "witch hunt," Mr. Paille's report concluded the Tories are actually spending more on polls — averaging two per working day.

"It shows we're doing a massive amount of polling, far more than we should be doing," Mr. Harper told the CBC. "We're going to take some steps to reduce that."

One general comment on these polls. Harper won a minority with 36% of the popular vote. This would indicate that Canadians are divided on major policy matters. In order for the bureaucracy to properly advise the government on proposed policy development and amendment, it is important that it measure the reaction of Canadians beforehand. Otherwise the bureaucracy would be operating in a vacuum.

The Tories didn't care where or who the polls were being commissioned by when they ordered the investigation. Now, they are saying it is a big difference between their polls and the Liberal ones. Unfortunately for them, the investigator tossed it in their face.

What has Harper done to reduce the amount of polling that he says is a problem. Nothing.

And all Tory supporters can say is that it is important this polling happens because...well because it shows the government is trying to control the bureaucracy.

[capricorn]

What has Harper done to reduce the amount of polling that he says is a problem. Nothing.

Paille's report was made available to the Conservatives sometime in October. That's less than 2 months ago. I know you're getting used the Conservatives acting quickly on matters but a little patience is in order for concrete steps to materialize.

And all Tory supporters can say is that it is important this polling happens because...well because it shows the government is trying to control the bureaucracy.

That's your conclusion and yours alone. Conservative supporters will make up their own minds on the need for and importance of polls.

[guyser]

The vast majority of polls are commissioned by departments and agencies, not by Harper. The polling policy as it stands today existed under the Liberal government. It would therefore be incorrect to conclude that the Conservatives increased polling since their election since the policy was long standing.

Stevey himself said last night , in a question from mansbridge, that in fact the cons had done more polls than the libs did previously. In fairness.....he did say he had not been aware of that , IOW, politic-speak.

[jdobbin]

Paille's report was made available to the Conservatives sometime in October. That's less than 2 months ago. I know you're getting used the Conservatives acting quickly on matters but a little patience is in order for concrete steps to materialize.

That's your conclusion and yours alone. Conservative supporters will make up their own minds on the need for and importance of polls.

I'm sure it took them a while to digest the fact that Paille cleared the Liberals and blasted the Tories. It must have taken a bit to digest.

Actually, I am basing things on what you said that the bureaucracy operates in a vacuum and needs to be controlled by polls.

My conclusion is that Harper, much like Hollywood, can't operate without a script. And he gets his script from polling.

[jdobbin]

Stevey himself said last night , in a question from mansbridge, that in fact the cons had done more polls than the libs did previously. In fairness.....he did say he had not been aware of that , IOW, politic-speak.

He probably wasn't aware of it because Fortier can answer questions while hiding in the Senate.

The man is running sometime, isn't he?

[capricorn]

Stevey himself said last night , in a question from mansbridge, that in fact the cons had done more polls than the libs did previously. In fairness.....he did say he had not been aware of that , IOW, politic-speak.

As Paille pointed out in his report, the Conservatives were conducting polling in accordance with the polling policy which existed when the Liberals were at the helm. Maybe the Liberals didn't realize at the time they could have increased polling expenses and still remained within the limits of their own policy guidelines.

[capricorn]

Actually, I am basing things on what you said that the bureaucracy operates in a vacuum and needs to be controlled by polls.

You selectively fail to comprehend what I said and qualify my statement. Oh, well.

My conclusion is that Harper, much like Hollywood, can't operate without a script. And he gets his script from polling.

I'm well aware of your views of the "controlling" Harper. Same old. Anyway...

A very Merry Christmas jd, and a fantastic New Year!

capricorn

[jdobbin]

As Paille pointed out in his report, the Conservatives were conducting polling in accordance with the polling policy which existed when the Liberals were at the helm. Maybe the Liberals didn't realize at the time they could have increased polling expenses and still remained within the limits of their own policy guidelines.

The Tories certainly thought there was something wrong with that amount of polling when the Liberals did it but made no effort to change it when elected. And when Fortier mentioned moratorium, he was told to reverse himself immediately. The reason: Not entirely clear.

And now Harper is kind of shrugging his shoulders. He didn't know that two polls a day were being commissioned. And when he did find out weeks ago, he sort of missed the opportunity to mention how he was going to bring that number down. He sort of missed the opportunity two years ago to stop being ruled by polls.

[jdobbin]

You selectively fail to comprehend what I said and qualify my statement. Oh, well.

I'm well aware of your views of the "controlling" Harper. Same old. Anyway...

A very Merry Christmas jd, and a fantastic New Year!

Thanks. Merry Christmas.

My views on the "controlling" Harper are shared by many. I guess I don't know him like the kitten loving guy that fellow Conservatives know him as.

As for the issue on polling, I guess we can only base our thoughts on when Harper said he would not be ruled by polls. We now know that he is and that it is somehow the Liberals who are to blame.

[Alexandra]

Harper's written instructions to Johnston was to set the parameters of an inquiry, not to decide not to have one. That is Harper's spin on that.

Dion's written instructions to Johnston were to expand Johnston's inquiry into the Prime Minister's office, which, obviously was nothing more than a public show of chest beating, as follows:

OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says any public inquiry into Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber will also have to look at Stephen Harper if the probe is to have any credibility.

In a letter to David Johnston, the academic appointed to conduct a preliminary review the affair, Dion expresses concern that Harper's Conservative government is trying to limit the scope of the investigation - and especially to avoid any embarrassing questions about the present prime minister.

Jack Layton wasn't happy with Dion's written instructions to Johnston,

NDP Leader Jack Layton said Sunday he doesn't object to Johnston examining the issues raised by Dion, but he maintained the Liberal leader didn't go far enough.

Whoever conducts the full-scale inquiry should have terms of reference broad enough to follow wherever the evidence leads with no restrictions, Layton said in an interview.

That could include the actions of past Liberal governments as well as Tory ones, he said, suggesting that Dion's letter is "more like a finger-pointing exercise than a genuine effort to try and be co-operative and collaborative."

After being bombarded with such sage advice and written instructions by all of the Opposition leaders Mr. Johnston may very well conclude that whatever the original intent of any Public Inquiry was into this affair has been lost therefore he may suggest that there will be a very limited inquiry into whether Mulroney took money from Shreiber during his term in office as Prime Minister or - there will be no public inquiry. Period.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n111842A

[Michael Bluth]

Dion's written instructions to Johnston were to expand Johnston's inquiry into the Prime Minister's office, which, obviously was nothing more than a public show of chest beating, as follows:

Jack Layton wasn't happy with Dion's written instructions to Johnston,

If Johnston decides an inquiry is unnecessary, and just the Liberals take issue their howls of protestation will ring ever more hollow.

What will they claim? They NDP is acting in collusion with the CPC?

[jdobbin]

After being bombarded with such sage advice and written instructions by all of the Opposition leaders Mr. Johnston may very well conclude that whatever the original intent of any Public Inquiry was into this affair has been lost therefore he may suggest that there will be a very limited inquiry into whether Mulroney took money from Shreiber during his term in office as Prime Minister or - there will be no public inquiry. Period.

Not having an inquiry was not part of Johnston's written instructions. He was to decide the parameters of such an inquiry not to cancel it just because the PM and Mulroney now want to sweep it aside.. All of the latest suggestions by Harper, Dion and Layton should be ignored in favour of what Johnston finds based on legal, tax and ethical expert advice.

Edited December 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[guyser]

Maybe the Liberals didn't realize at the time they could have increased polling expenses and still remained within the limits of their own policy guidelines.

But that isnt the point. It was stevey who did not want to go this route....and has.